do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-556/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 July 2019 — Société Eco TLC v Ministre de la transition écologique et solidaire
Date: 2019-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, non-profit organisation, waste recycling








C_2019328EN.01002802.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 July 2019 — Société Eco TLC v Ministre de la transition écologique et solidaire
(Case C-556/19)
(2019/C 328/32)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Société Eco TLC

Defendant: Ministre de la transition écologique et solidaire

Other party: Fédération des entreprises du recyclage

Question referred

Must Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that a system such as that described in paragraphs 9 to 11, whereby a private, non-profit eco-body, approved by the public authorities, receives contributions from those who place on the market a particular category of product and who enter into a contract with it to that effect, in return for a service consisting in the organisation on their behalf of the treatment of the waste from those products, and redistributes to operators responsible for the sorting and recovery of that waste, subsidies the amount of which is set out in the approval, in the light of environmental and social targets, is to be regarded as State aid within the meaning of that provision?
Case C-557/19 P: Appeal brought on 22 July 2019 by Hochmann Marketing GmbH against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2019 in Case T-754/18, Hochmann Marketing GmbH v European Parliament
Date: 2019-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: legal expenses, operation of the Institutions








C_2020201EN.01000201.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/2






Appeal brought on 22 July 2019 by Hochmann Marketing GmbH against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2019 in Case T-754/18, Hochmann Marketing GmbH v European Parliament
(Case C-557/19 P)
(2020/C 201/02)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Hochmann Marketing GmbH (represented by: J Jennings, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
By order of 30 April 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Case T-529/19: Action brought on 22 July 2019 – Adeso v Commission
Date: 2019-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU control, audit, claim, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019357EN.01003601.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/36






Action brought on 22 July 2019 – Adeso v Commission
(Case T-529/19)
(2019/C 357/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: African Development Solutions (Adeso) (Nairobi, Kenya) (represented by: R. Martens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul, in its entirety, the contested decision, i.e. the Commission’s decision of 10 May 2019, and thus to declare that the claims for recovery in respect of Grant Agreements FED/2013/313-770 and FED/2013/316-291 in the amount of respectively EUR 3 298 703,59 and EUR 11 919,40 have no basis;










—


order the defendant to pay all costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in which the principle of good administration is embedded: the right to be heard is manifestly disregarded, as well as the principle of legal certainty, because, despite the numerous and serious concerns raised by the applicant regarding the contested Audit report and the several meetings requested in order to clarify these important outstanding issues, the Commission refused to set up such meeting, whereas, in accordance with settled case-law, observance of the right to be heard is of general application and a condition of legality of any decision taken by the EU institutions, and must therefore be respected at all times and in all sort of procedures.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, fairness and contractual good faith, as enshrined in Article 5(4) TEU, because, by immediately issuing a recovery order without giving the applicant the chance to give an adequate explanation of the contested Audit findings by means of an extensively elaborated management response and the proposed meetings, the defendant did not act in good faith and exceeded the limits of what is appropriate and necessary, whereas, an adequate amicable settlement could have been sufficient in first instance, as prescribed by the General Conditions of the Grant Agreement. It was thus not necessary nor essential for the defendant’s statement of the reasons for its decision to neglect the applicant’s request to pursue an amicable settlement in the first place. This is fully contrary to the principle of proportionality which implies that, if there are several appropriate measures, as is the case in the current matter, those that are the least invasive and burdensome must be chosen (quod non).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9332 — Ericsson/Kathrein Antenna and Filter Assets) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-07-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: communications industry, computer network, economic concentration, information network, information technology industry, merger control, provision of services








C_2019245EN.01000701.xml










22.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/7






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9332 — Ericsson/Kathrein Antenna and Filter Assets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 245/06)

1.   
On 15 July 2019, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) including its subsidiaries (‘Ericsson’, Sweden),










—


Kathrein SE including its subsidiaries (‘Kathrein Group’, Germany).




Ericsson acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of parts of Kathrein Group. The proposed concentration only concerns Kathrein Group’s business in passive antennas and filters as components for mobile network equipment.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of assets.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Ericsson: a provider of network equipment and software, as well as services for network and business operations,
—   for Kathrein Group: a provider of communication technologies solutions.


3.   

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.



4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.9332 — Ericsson/Kathrein Antenna and Filter Assets
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu




Fax +32 22964301




Postal address:




European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).
Criteria for the assignment of cases to Chambers
Date: 2019-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: General Court (EU), allocation of work, judicial proceedings, rules of procedure








C_2019246EN.01000201.xml










22.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/2






Criteria for the assignment of cases to Chambers
(2019/C 246/02)
At its plenum on 3 July 2019, the General Court laid down, in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure, the criteria for the assignment of cases to Chambers.
These are as follows:






1.


Cases shall be assigned to Chambers of three Judges as soon as possible after the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure.










2.


Civil service cases, that is cases brought pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and, where appropriate, Article 50a of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, shall be allocated to the First Chamber, the Second Chamber, the Third Chamber and the Fourth Chamber in turn, in accordance with the date on which those cases are registered at the Registry.










3.


Cases concerning intellectual property rights referred to in Title IV of the Rules of Procedure shall be allocated to the Fifth Chamber, the Sixth Chamber, the Seventh Chamber, the Eighth Chamber, the Ninth Chamber and the Tenth Chamber in turn, in accordance with the date on which those cases are registered at the Registry.










4.


Cases other than those referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn, in accordance with the date on which they are registered at the Registry, following two separate rotas:






—


for cases concerning application of the competition rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on State aid and the rules on trade protection measures,










—


for all other cases.














5.


The President of the General Court may derogate from the rotas outlined in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 in order to take account of a connection between cases or with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.










6.


In the light of the decision of the General Court, taken at its plenum on 19 June 2019, on the conduct of the activity of the General Court from 1 to 26 September 2019 (OJ 2019 C 238, p. 2), providing that the decision of the General Court of 11 May 2016 on the criteria for the assignment of cases to Chambers (OJ 2016 C 296, p. 2) will continue to apply between 1 and 26 September 2019, the criteria for the assignment of cases to Chambers set out above shall be laid down for the period from 27 September 2019 to 31 August 2022.
Case T-518/19: Action brought on 22 July 2019 — Sipcam Oxon v Commission
Date: 2019-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: market approval, plant health control, plant health product, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, withdrawal from the market








C_2019305EN.01006501.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/65






Action brought on 22 July 2019 — Sipcam Oxon v Commission
(Case T-518/19)
(2019/C 305/75)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sipcam Oxon SpA (Milano, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu, P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible and well-founded;










—


annul the contested Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/677 of 29 April 2019;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted further to manifest errors of assessment.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation results from a procedure during which the applicant’s rights of defence have not been respected.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of legal certainty because of the incorrect application of guidelines.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation wad adopted in breach of the precautionary principle.
Case C-370/19: Order of the President of the Court of 22 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — GE v Société Air France
Date: 2019-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, strike








C_2020019EN.01004101.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/41






Order of the President of the Court of 22 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — GE v Société Air France
(Case C-370/19) (1)

(2020/C 19/48)
Language of the case: Germany
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9142 — REWE/Lekkerland) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-07-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consumer goods, distributor, economic concentration, merger control, retail trade, wholesale trade








C_2019245EN.01000501.xml










22.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9142 — REWE/Lekkerland)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 245/05)

1.   
On 15 July 2019, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


REWE-ZENTRALFINANZ eG (Germany, ‘REWE’) and REWE-Zentral Aktiengesellschaft (Germany) (together ‘REWE Group’),










—


Lekkerland AG & Co. KG (Germany) and Lekkerland AG (Germany) (together ‘Lekkerland’).




REWE acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over the whole of Lekkerland.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


REWE is mainly active in the retail distribution of daily consumer goods. It operates supermarkets, beverage stores, discounters, DIY stores and drugstores under different brands,










—


Lekkerland is mainly active in the wholesale distribution of daily consumer goods like food-to-go and non-food products, including tobacco, as well as in the supply of e-loading solutions.






3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.9142 — REWE/Lekkerland
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu




Fax +32 22964301




Postal address:




European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Notice concerning the provisional application of the Interim Agreement establishing a framework for an Economic Partnership Agreement between the Eastern and Southern Africa States, on the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, on the other part
Date: 2019-07-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Comoros, cooperation agreement (EU), cooperation policy, framework agreement, interim agreement (EU)








L_2019194EN.01000101.xml










22.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 194/1







Notice concerning the provisional application of the Interim Agreement establishing a framework for an Economic Partnership Agreement between the Eastern and Southern Africa States, on the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, on the other part (1)


The European Union and the Union of Comoros have notified the completion of the procedures necessary for the provisional application of the Interim Agreement establishing a framework for an Economic Partnership Agreement between the Eastern and Southern Africa States, on the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, on the other part, in accordance with Article 62 of that Agreement. Consequently, the Agreement applies provisionally as from 7 February 2019 between the European Union and the Union of Comoros.


(1)  
            OJ L 111, 24.4.2012, p. 2.
Case T-520/19: Action brought on 22 July 2019 — Heitec v EUIPO — Hetec Datensysteme (HEITEC)
Date: 2019-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, automation, consultancy, recording equipment, registered trade mark, teaching materials, trade-mark law, traineeship, user guide








C_2019312EN.01004301.xml










16.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 312/43






Action brought on 22 July 2019 — Heitec v EUIPO — Hetec Datensysteme (HEITEC)
(Case T-520/19)
(2019/C 312/35)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Heitec AG (Erlangen, Germany) (represented by: G. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hetec Datensysteme GmbH (Germering, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark HEITEC — EU trade mark No 774 331

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 April 2019 in Case R 1171/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Rule 22(3) and (4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-07-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019245EN.01000201.xml










22.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

19 July 2019
(2019/C 245/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1226 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,93 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4662 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89635 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5195 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1033 




ISK


Iceland króna


140,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6138 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,546 




HUF


Hungarian forint


325,36 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2571 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7309 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3356 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5913 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4655 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7621 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6582 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5259 




KRW


South Korean won


1 319,12 




ZAR


South African rand


15,6369 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7217 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3880 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 662,52 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6107 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,283 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,7370 




THB


Thai baht


34,570 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,1889 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,3542 




INR


Indian rupee


77,2545 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9411 — Parker-Hannifin Corporation/Lord Corporation) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-07-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: advanced technology industry, aeronautical industry, aerospace industry, economic concentration, holding company, merger control








C_2019245EN.01000801.xml










22.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/8






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9411 — Parker-Hannifin Corporation/Lord Corporation)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 245/07)

1.   
On 15 July 2019, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Parker-Hannifin Corporation (“Parker”, United States),










—


Lord Corporation (“Lord”, United States).




Parker acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Lord.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Parker is the holding company of the Parker Group, which manufactures motion control technologies, fluid purification, fluid and fuel control products, process instrumentation, air conditioning, refrigeration, electromagnetic shielding and thermal management products,










—


Lord is a global and diversified technology and manufacturing company offering diverse mix of products including adhesives, coating, aerospace vibration and motion control systems.






3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.9411 — Parker-Hannifin Corporation/Lord Corporation
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





E-mail: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu




Fax: +32 22964301




Postal address:




European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.